Ps. 78.59 (glint of steel; and, a proposal)

When God heard about it / he was furious
and he vehemently / repudiated Israel. 

Similarity. The first half of this verse mirrors verse 21. As there, God ‘hears about’ Israel’s rebellion at the pinnacle of their disobedience. There: it was the provocation to provide meat; here: it is the provocation of idols. In both, the disobedience forms a type of perfect rebellion against what God has provided. There: God had provided gushing water in a wilderness (prodigal water in the dessert), and they complain for bread; here: God brings Israel to his territory where his mountain is (his sanctuary), and they construct idols on the ‘high places’. As is clear this is no mere disobedience, but is, as the psalmist describes, a rebellion. It acts against the very blessing God has provided. This is why the ‘hearing about it’ becomes ‘fury’. Difference. The difference from verse 21 is important. In verse 21 God’s response is a consuming fire and wrath. Here, God responds by “vehemently repudiating Israel”. We noted yesterday how God’s response is perfectly tailored to Israel’s rejection of him. In a sense, God’s response is constructed out of their rebellion. Here we can see clearly how that is the case. Israel’s first reaction to being brought into the land was to “rebel against God” (vs 56) and to “turn aside” (vs. 57). Here, God “repudiates Israel” and “forsakes his tabernacle” (vs. 60). (One recalls Jesus words of, ‘If you deny me in front of men I will deny you in front of the Father…’). What we see is that God’s response is a type of enactment of Israel’s rebellion; it boomerangs back upon Israel’s own head. And so begins the ‘time of curse’. Because this response is constructed out of Israel’s rebellion it has a type of suffocating sense of proportion to it. It is exact, and perfectly , and proportionately, responsive to Israel. In this way it stands in total contrast to the ‘time of blessing’ which has a sense of prodigal festivity to it, a crossing of every boundary and a deep sense of a lack of proportion. There is a needlessness to it, a sense that at its core there is nothing but joy (God’s ‘shining face’). At the core of this furious response, though, one finds something very different, although it is hard to accurately describe. Rather than the ‘shining face’ one sees the ‘face of flint’. Rather than radiance, there is glint of steel to it.

A Proposal. In the gospel of John, Jesus says that he did not come to judge the world but that the world stands already judged (by how it responds to him). In this psalm, the judgment that visits Israel is, as we have show above, a judgment that is, in a way, Israel’s own rebellion becomes ‘objectified’ (or, enacted; or, boomeranging back). The judgment is purely responsive; the blessing is purely active. What I mean is that we could see the judgment as nothing more than Israel’s rebellion becoming ‘activated’ by God’s ‘hearing’ (his presence) such that it then becomes a curse; but it is Israel’s own curse coming down upon them; nothing is needed except it being brought into the light of God’s presence. Now, in John, Christ is described as ‘the Truth and the Light’. Here is the point: Christ is the presence of the Father. His presence is the presence of this psalm that ‘activates’ man’s response to God such that it either becomes one of blessing or curse. This is why how one responds to Christ is how one experiences judgment. As the Father’s presence he is the ‘incarnate judgment’ of God.